libpng and kde on sparc working yet?

[Robert Reif]

I just did an apt-get update and I still have this problem (no icons).

Has this been resolved yet?

Thanks,

Bob.

Re: Sun Support for Linux

[Bill Schoolcraft]

At Mon, 11 Feb 2002 it looks like Bob Van Cleef composed:

> 
> Has anyone seen any indication of a sea change since the press release
> stating the Sun was embracing Linux?
> 

Hmm, well there have been actually two announcements in the last two
weeks that have raised havoc on the SUN mailing lists,
Solaris-On-Intel to be exact.

Sun announced that they were NOT going to release Solaris-9 for
Intel but only Solaris-9 for Sparc, they also pulled the free
downloads for Solaris-8 Intel ISO's but Sparc downloads are still
free.

That lit off a rage on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisonintel/messages list which
caught SUN off gaurd and they had a big meeting today, that is 6 of
the top posters of the Solaris-On-Intel lists and some big folks at
SUN, they will announce the results tomorrow or shortly after.

Posters to the list are divided, not on the Solaris OS but on what
SUN should do since it buckled in per-se'.  Some say SUN is losing
it, (see stock prices) some say they are just in a flux.

I posted once stating that SUN would do good to invest in Linux on
Sparc hardware to help salvage the possibly soon to come "Sparc
Auctions" but my idea wasn't received well.  Jeez I see companies
with hundred of thousands of dollars of pre-existing sparc hardware
just waiting to install a Sparc version of Linux but Sun as we know
it doesn't have a Linux release for Sparc.  For orientation purposes
I posted the url of http://www.ultralinux.org/

We'll see. :)

__
|<---|_72_Characters_Wide_|--->|
Bill Schoolcraft
PO Box 210076 -o)
San Francisco CA 94121 /\
"UNIX, A Way Of Life."_\_v
http://forwardslashunix.com

Solemul

[mei chung]

Is there any solemul(Solaris emulator) running on intel platform?

Which party provides the sparc version of solemul that you tried to download 
from?

Thanks,
Mei Chung
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun Support for Linux

[John Falkenthal]

As a Sun insider there is only so much I can share - but, there is a
very healthy UltraSPARC roadmap in front of us.  Sun has an unwavering
committment to SPARC and its long term viability.  Current generation
UltraSPARC-III Cu running at 900mhz will go to 1050 and 1200.  After that 
you'll see UltraSPARC-IV on all the current generation platforms; which
will add significant performance and RAS enhancements. UltraSPARC-V is 
well understood and will be the cornerstone of our next gen product line.
For the record, Sun's Processor Products Group (PPG) is responsible for
the SPARC microprocessor, not Sun Labs.

The Cobalt team makes some killer products under the Sun brand now.  This
x86/Linux play is part of that product line, and not a statement of the
eventual future demise of SPARC.

JF

Rob Walsh wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:47:46AM +1100, Craig Ian Dewick wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bob Van Cleef wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone seen any indication of a sea change since the press release
> > > stating the Sun was embracing Linux?
> >
> > Yes, and it was quite disturbing that Sun is planning to release new
> > systems based not on the Sparc architecture, but the x86 one! When I read
> > that I was a little confused, but since Sun has this alliance with the
> > other big iron companies which will see it move away from Ultrasparc
> > processors, it's hardly surprising to see Sun getting into bed with the
> > company that provides the foundation for their opposite number (ie.
> > Megasloth Windoze Xtremely Pathetic).
> 
> I doubt that it quite means a move away from Sparc.  I did a double
> take when I saw the announcement, too.  But then memory kicked in: The
> product line to which it refers is the Cobalt Raq servers, which they
> bought out not too long ago.  Which were some of the first turnkey
> (shipped with Linux installed) boxes available.  I think Sun is just
> hedging their bets.
> 
> > I've seen the annoucements on of the latest additions to the
> > Ultrasparc-III servers, and I wonder if this will be the last progression
> > for the Ultrasparc processors? I know Sun Labs were working on the
> > Ultrasparc-IV processor but I heard it was stopped in favour of going with
> > something from Intel. Any truth to that?
> 
> No clue.  I would think (and hope) that Sun has enough market share in
> the mid / high end market to make it worth keeping up.  I don't think
> there is much serious competetion for the E10k, in the niche that it
> occupies.  And just the benefit of being able to run headless with a
> real serial port console (i.e. including being able to get to the
> "BIOS") is enough benefit over Intel stuff for me.  (I keep hoping
> that someone will start shipping Intel boards with the Linux BIOS
> Project ROMs on them.  <2 sec. POST time and true serial port
> console.  Drool.)
> 
> > > A quick look at the Linux pages on the Sun.COM website last week did not
> > > turn up anything other than the annoucement.
> > >
> > > http://www.sun.com/2002-0206/linux/
> > >
> > > The "expanding the role of linux on entry level servers" sounds promising
> > > in relation to my Blade-100 problems.
> >
> > It's good for Sparc platforms I guess. I do wonder though which of the
> > 'flavours' of Linux Sun plans to take on board?
> 
> I wouldn't hold your breath -- I don't think they're talking about the
> Sparc line.  I wish they would.
> 
> Later,
>   Rob.
> 
>   
> 
>Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

Re: Sun Support for Linux

[Rob Walsh]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:47:46AM +1100, Craig Ian Dewick wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bob Van Cleef wrote:
> 
> > Has anyone seen any indication of a sea change since the press release
> > stating the Sun was embracing Linux?
> 
> Yes, and it was quite disturbing that Sun is planning to release new
> systems based not on the Sparc architecture, but the x86 one! When I read
> that I was a little confused, but since Sun has this alliance with the
> other big iron companies which will see it move away from Ultrasparc
> processors, it's hardly surprising to see Sun getting into bed with the
> company that provides the foundation for their opposite number (ie.
> Megasloth Windoze Xtremely Pathetic).

I doubt that it quite means a move away from Sparc.  I did a double
take when I saw the announcement, too.  But then memory kicked in: The
product line to which it refers is the Cobalt Raq servers, which they
bought out not too long ago.  Which were some of the first turnkey
(shipped with Linux installed) boxes available.  I think Sun is just
hedging their bets.

> I've seen the annoucements on of the latest additions to the
> Ultrasparc-III servers, and I wonder if this will be the last progression
> for the Ultrasparc processors? I know Sun Labs were working on the
> Ultrasparc-IV processor but I heard it was stopped in favour of going with
> something from Intel. Any truth to that?

No clue.  I would think (and hope) that Sun has enough market share in
the mid / high end market to make it worth keeping up.  I don't think
there is much serious competetion for the E10k, in the niche that it
occupies.  And just the benefit of being able to run headless with a
real serial port console (i.e. including being able to get to the
"BIOS") is enough benefit over Intel stuff for me.  (I keep hoping
that someone will start shipping Intel boards with the Linux BIOS
Project ROMs on them.  <2 sec. POST time and true serial port
console.  Drool.)

> > A quick look at the Linux pages on the Sun.COM website last week did not
> > turn up anything other than the annoucement.
> >
> > http://www.sun.com/2002-0206/linux/
> >
> > The "expanding the role of linux on entry level servers" sounds promising
> > in relation to my Blade-100 problems.
> 
> It's good for Sparc platforms I guess. I do wonder though which of the
> 'flavours' of Linux Sun plans to take on board?

I wouldn't hold your breath -- I don't think they're talking about the
Sparc line.  I wish they would.

Later,
  Rob.


pgpW7pzQU5jY4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

422 Genealogy Databases [2]

[Angie's Genealogy]

Below is a list of 422 Genealogy Databases with over 1.5 
billion names. 
I am offering to search these databases for only $1(US) 
per search.

Just send a minimum of $10(US) to:

Angie Giles
P.O.Box 873
Rowlett, TX, USA 75030-0873

Because of technical reasons beyond my control, I might 
not be able 
to receive emails that you send by replying to this email. 
Please send 
comments, suggestions and questions to the PO Box 
above.

Include the DBNO(Database Number) listed beside each 
database 
and the names your searching for and your email address. 
If there is 
more than 1 of the same name in a database, It will be $1
(US) per 
instance. I will email you the information that is listed for 
each 
instance of the name searched.

Notice: I cannot guarantee that the person you are looking 
for is in 
the database. You are paying for my time in looking up 
your names. 
I charge a minimum of $1(US) per database, even if there 
is no 
instances of the name your are looking for.

Thank You
Angie


DBNO-DB NAME

Birth Databases:
0010-Southern PA, 1680-1800
0015-US and Europe 900-1880
0020-British Isles, A-C #2
0025-British Isles, D-I #3
0030-British Isles, J-Q #4
0035-British Isles, R-Z #5
0040-North America, A-C #1

Cemetery Databases:
0100-Salt Lake City, 1848-1992

Census Databases:
0200-1850 Census Schedules
0205-1881 British Census, East Anglia Region #1
0210-1881 British Census, Greater London Region, 
London, Middlesex, A-
L #1
0215-1881 British Census, Greater London Region, 
London, Middlesex, 
M-Z CD 2
0220-1881 British Census, Midlands Region, West 
Counties A-Z
0225-1881 British Census, North Central Region York A-L #
3
0230-1881 British Census, North Central Region York M-Z
0235-1881 British Census, Northern Borders & Miscellary 
Region #1
0240-1881 British Census, Scotland Region, Highland 
Counties #1
0245-1881 British Census, Scotland Region, Lowland 
County #2
0250-1881 British Census, Southwestern Region, #1
0255-African Americans in the 1870 Census
0260-IA 1860
0265-UK 1851

Census Index Databases:
0300-1840 US Census Index: Mid-Atlantic 
0305-1881 British Census, Index A-B #1
0310-1881 British Census, Index C-Em #2
0315-1881 British Census, Index En-Hn #3
0320-1881 British Census, Index Hi-L #4
0325-1881 British Census, Index M-O #5
0330-1881 British Census, Index P-R #6
0335-1881 British Census, Index S-T #7
0340-1881 British Census, Index U-Z #8
0345-Baltimore, Chicago & St.Louis, 1870
0350-Colonial 1607-1789
0355-CT,MA,ME,NH,RI & VT 1900
0360-DE,DC,MD,PA,OH,VA & WV 1900
0365-GA 1870
0370-ID 1910
0375-MA 1870
0380-NC,SC 1870
0385-NY City 1870
0390-OH 1880
0395-Ontario, CN 1871
0400-PA,DE,NJ 1850
0405-US Selected Counties 1790
0410-US Selected Counties 1800
0415-US Selected Counties 1810
0420-US Selected Counties 1820
0425-US Selected Counties 1830
0430-US Selected Counties 1840
0435-US Selected Counties 1850
0440-US Selected Counties 1860
0445-US Selected Counties 1870
0450-US Selected Counties 1880
0455-VA,WV 1870
0460-VA,WV,NC,KY 1870
0465-Western PA 1870
0470-Western PA 1870

Census Microfilm Databases:
0500-AL,AR,LA & MS 1850 #1
0505-AL,AR,LA & MS 1850 #2
0510-AL,AR,LA & MS 1850 #3
0515-AL,AR,LA & MS 1850 #4
0520-AL,AR,LA & MS 1850 #6
0525-CA,NM,OR,TX & UT 1850 #1
0530-CA,NM,OR,TX & UT 1850 #3
0535-CA,NM,OR,TX & UT 1850 #4
0540-CT & RI 1850 CD 1
0545-CT & RI 1850 CD 2
0550-CT & RI 1850 CD 3
0555-CT & RI 1850 CD 4
0560-IL 1850 #1
0565-IL 1850 #3
0570-IL 1850 #4
0575-IN 1850 #3
0580-IN 1850 #4
0585-IN 1850 #5
0590-MA 1850 #1
0595-MA 1850 #3
0600-MA 1850 #4
0605-MA 1850 #5
0610-MA 1850 #6
0615-ME,NH & VT 1850 #2
0620-ME,NH & VT 1850 #3
0625-ME,NH & VT 1850 #4
0630-ME,NH & VT 1850 #5
0635-NC 1850 #1
0640-NC 1850 #2
0645-NC 1850 #3
0650-NC 1850 #4
0655-PA 1850 #1
0660-PA 1850 #11
0665-PA 1850 #2
0670-PA 1850 #3
0675-PA 1850 #4
0680-PA 1850 #5
0685-PA 1850 #6
0690-PA 1850 #7
0695-PA 1850 #8
0700-TN 1850 #3

Church Databases:
0805-Adams, Berks & Lancaster Co., PA 1729-1881
0810-English Parish Records, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, 
Derbyshire
0815-English Parish Records, Yorkshire, Ainsty & City of 
York
0820-English Parish Records, Yorkshire, East Riding
0825-English Parish Records, Yorkshire, North Riding, 
Durham
0830-English Parish Records, Yorkshire, West Riding, 
Nottinghamshire
0835-MD & DE, 1600s-1800s
0840-PA German 1729-1870
0845-PA,Adams Co.,1745-1825 #3
0850-PA,Berks Co., 1752-1825 #4
0855-PA,Lancaster Co., 1729-1825 #11
0860-Selected Areas of PA 1600s-1800s
0865-Tithe Applotment Books: 1823-1838

Deaths Databases:
0905-AL 1908-1959
0910-Directory of Deceased American Physicians 1804-
1929
0915-IA 1882-1920
0920-NY 1700s-1900s
0925-Social Security Death Index: A-L US 1937-1997 #1
0930-Social Security Death Index: M-Z US 1937-1997 #2
0935-US 1850-1880

Deeds Databases:
1000-Mayflower Vital Records: Deeds and Wills 1600-1900

Family Databases:
1055-217 Genealogy Books
1060-Ancestral File 1998 #1
1065-Ancestral File 1998 #2
1070-Ancestral File 1998 #3
1075-Ancestral File 1998 #4
1080-An

Re: Sun Support for Linux

[Craig Ian Dewick]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bob Van Cleef wrote:

> Has anyone seen any indication of a sea change since the press release
> stating the Sun was embracing Linux?

Yes, and it was quite disturbing that Sun is planning to release new
systems based not on the Sparc architecture, but the x86 one! When I read
that I was a little confused, but since Sun has this alliance with the
other big iron companies which will see it move away from Ultrasparc
processors, it's hardly surprising to see Sun getting into bed with the
company that provides the foundation for their opposite number (ie.
Megasloth Windoze Xtremely Pathetic).

I've seen the annoucements on of the latest additions to the
Ultrasparc-III servers, and I wonder if this will be the last progression
for the Ultrasparc processors? I know Sun Labs were working on the
Ultrasparc-IV processor but I heard it was stopped in favour of going with
something from Intel. Any truth to that?

> A quick look at the Linux pages on the Sun.COM website last week did not
> turn up anything other than the annoucement.
>
>   http://www.sun.com/2002-0206/linux/
>
> The "expanding the role of linux on entry level servers" sounds promising
> in relation to my Blade-100 problems.

It's good for Sparc platforms I guess. I do wonder though which of the
'flavours' of Linux Sun plans to take on board?

Regards,

Craig.

-- 
  Craig Ian Dewick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). http://lios.apana.org.au/~craig
  APANA Sydney Regional Co-ordinator. Operator of Jedi (an APANA Sydney POP).
 Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world
   Have you exported a crypto system today? Do your bit to undermine the NSA.

Sun Support for Linux

[Bob Van Cleef]

Has anyone seen any indication of a sea change since the press release
stating the Sun was embracing Linux?

A quick look at the Linux pages on the Sun.COM website last week did not
turn up anything other than the annoucement.

http://www.sun.com/2002-0206/linux/

The "expanding the role of linux on entry level servers" sounds promising
in relation to my Blade-100 problems.

Bob
-- 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>
Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administrator (408) 734-8100
MicroUnity, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8136
376 Martin Ave., Santa Clara, CA 95050  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: compiling glibc2.2.4 on woody (64 bit) - problem

[Ben Collins]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:54:14PM +0100, Armijn Hemel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> 
> > > this weekend I played around a bit with the 64 bit userland on my system.
> > > I compiled a new gcc (3.0.3), which by default creates 64 bit code. I
> > > then tried to compile glibc 2.2.4 (vanilla, out of the box from GNU), but
> > > it failed.
> > 
> > You do realize that you can simply install gcc-3.0 and libc6-dev-sparc64
> > and build 64bit code, right?
> 
> Oh yes and that worked perfectly. I did compile several packages in `64 bit
> mode'. But now I want to rebuild glibc myself (I'm porting ROCK Linux, which
> is autobuilding, using Debian as a `base system')).
> 
> > As for your issues, I suggest a newer gcc. Not sure what that problem
> > is (haven't seen it myself).
> 
> I noticed that Debian uses a few patches to glibc 2.2.4. Well, I will try
> with glibc 2.2.5 soon and see if that works...

Good luck. I'm willing to bet this is a compiler bug though (ICE's
always are a bug in the compiler anyway :)


Ben

-- 
 .--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/   Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com  \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   --   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Re: compiling glibc2.2.4 on woody (64 bit) - problem

[Armijn Hemel]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:

> > this weekend I played around a bit with the 64 bit userland on my system.
> > I compiled a new gcc (3.0.3), which by default creates 64 bit code. I
> > then tried to compile glibc 2.2.4 (vanilla, out of the box from GNU), but
> > it failed.
> 
> You do realize that you can simply install gcc-3.0 and libc6-dev-sparc64
> and build 64bit code, right?

Oh yes and that worked perfectly. I did compile several packages in `64 bit
mode'. But now I want to rebuild glibc myself (I'm porting ROCK Linux, which
is autobuilding, using Debian as a `base system')).

> As for your issues, I suggest a newer gcc. Not sure what that problem
> is (haven't seen it myself).

I noticed that Debian uses a few patches to glibc 2.2.4. Well, I will try
with glibc 2.2.5 soon and see if that works...

armijn

-- 
 ---
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.nl.linux.org/~armijn/ | Penguin Power
 ---
 http://nl.linux.org/ | Alles over Linux
 ---

Re: compiling glibc2.2.4 on woody (64 bit) - problem

[Ben Collins]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:41:30PM +0100, Armijn Hemel wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> this weekend I played around a bit with the 64 bit userland on my system.
> I compiled a new gcc (3.0.3), which by default creates 64 bit code. I
> then tried to compile glibc 2.2.4 (vanilla, out of the box from GNU), but
> it failed.

You do realize that you can simply install gcc-3.0 and libc6-dev-sparc64
and build 64bit code, right?

As for your issues, I suggest a newer gcc. Not sure what that problem
is (haven't seen it myself).

-- 
 .--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/   Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux--WatchGuard.com  \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   --   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Re: Harddiscs are growing

[Michael Blickenstorfer]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:24:43PM +0100, Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz wrote:
> Quoting Michael Blickenstorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Hi all
> > 
> > I would like to install a 80GB harddisk on an UltraSparc10.
> > But reading the Sun's page of this system, I may only install
> > 2 times 20GB... Is this just an old page? Or won't it be possible
> > at any time?
> > 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I installed a 40GB harddisk on my UltraSparc10 and had no problems besides
> of formating the harddisk. But now it runs happily with ext3.

I really tried to install this 80GB, but failed at fdisk when building
the "whole disk"-Label for sun...

regards

> 
> regards
> --
> Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz, presently intern at 
> Tecnomatix Technologies Germany | Tel: +49 711 1389- 257
> Mittlerer Pfad 9| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 70 499 Stuttgart| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Studenten, Absolventen und Young Professionals 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This mail sent through IMP: webmail.fht-esslingen.de
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
"The software said it requires Windows 2000 or better,
 so I installed Linux"

Re: Harddiscs are growing

[Roger Pittman]

'Lo Michael,

> I would like to install a 80GB harddisk on an UltraSparc10.
> But reading the Sun's page of this system, I may only install
> 2 times 20GB... Is this just an old page? Or won't it be possible
> at any time?

  Don't know about an 80g, but I added a 40g to this Ultra10
back around Halloween.  The only relevant "problems" were that
I had to use the CS jumper instead of master/slave, which I'm
not used to doing, and 'oops' forgetting then fixing the (v)fstab
entries.  (System now dual boots sol8 from 40g master and debian
from 9g slave.)

-- roger

Re: Harddiscs are growing

[Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz]

Quoting Michael Blickenstorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Hi all
> 
> I would like to install a 80GB harddisk on an UltraSparc10.
> But reading the Sun's page of this system, I may only install
> 2 times 20GB... Is this just an old page? Or won't it be possible
> at any time?
> 
Hi Michael,

I installed a 40GB harddisk on my UltraSparc10 and had no problems besides
of formating the harddisk. But now it runs happily with ext3.

regards
--
Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz, presently intern at 
Tecnomatix Technologies Germany | Tel: +49 711 1389- 257
Mittlerer Pfad 9| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
70 499 Stuttgart| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Studenten, Absolventen und Young Professionals 



-
This mail sent through IMP: webmail.fht-esslingen.de

Unsubscribe

[Forrest Whitesides]

[홍보] '네티즌 선거혁명'에 참여하기

[참지모]

  '네티즌 선거혁명'에 참여하기 


 여러분의 허락없이 메일 드린 것을 먼저 사과 드립니다.
  debian-sparc님의 메일주소(debian-sparc@lists.debian.org)는 이 웹페이지(http://www.sun.com/software/linux/ultralinux/;$sessionid$zfztcm1ydmghlamta1lu4gq)에서 보고 이렇게 메일을 드립니다.
  메일주소는 무작위로 모아진 것이오며 글 읽기를 원치 않으시면 각 site에서 제공되는 수신거부를 클릭하시거나,
  아래의 수신거부를 클릭하십시요.
 
 

  
존경하는 네티즌 여러분, 안녕하십니까!
  
  '참된 
  지도자를 찾는 모임' 카페가 지난 1월 19일부터 여러분에게 '지도자 추천 참여하기' 캠페인을 
  펼친 결과는 퍽 고무적이었습니다. 여러분이 제시한 대통령 덕목은 정말 다양하고, 그러면서 나라를 걱정하는 의견, 그 가운데서도 경제를 잘 
  아는 '경제 대통령' 'CEO 대통령'을 원하는 목소리가 많았습니다.
  
  그러나 저러나 네티즌 여러분의 뜻은 민주당의 경우, 국민참여경선제로 이어져야 그 빛을 발할 수가 있습니다. 민주당에서는 이미 지난 7일부터 
  국민선거인단 공모에 들어가, 오는 25일 제주( 26일 울산 광주, 27일 대전)를 첫머리로 4월 9일(서울)까지 전국에서 일반국민을 상대로 
  3만 5천명의 선거인단을 추첨, 선발케 돼 있습니다. 우리 네티즌들은 민주당 홈페이지(http://www.minjoo.or.kr)로 접속하셔서 대망의 '네티즌 선거 혁명'에 참여하시기를 간곡히 당부합니다. 
  
  
  또한  
  '참된 지도자를 찾는 모임' 카페(http://cafe.daum.net/TrueLeader)의 
  추천게시판에도 들어가, 근자에 실시되고 있는 대선 후보 TV토론 결과 어느 후보가 다음의 3개 항목에 적합한지도 응답해 주시면 고맙겠습니다.

  

compiling glibc2.2.4 on woody (64 bit) - problem

[Armijn Hemel]

hi all,

this weekend I played around a bit with the 64 bit userland on my system.
I compiled a new gcc (3.0.3), which by default creates 64 bit code. I
then tried to compile glibc 2.2.4 (vanilla, out of the box from GNU), but
it failed.

[...]

gcc programs/ld-collate.c -c -DNDEBUG=1 -Wall -Winline -Wstrict-prototypes 
-Wwrite-strings -g -fcall-used-g7
-DLOCALE_PATH='"/usr/lib/locale:/usr/share/i18n"' 
-DLOCALEDIR='"/usr/lib/locale"' -DLOCALE_ALIAS_PATH='"/usr/share/locale"' 
-DCHARMAP_PATH='"/usr/share/i18n/charmaps"' 
-DREPERTOIREMAP_PATH='"/usr/share/i18n/repertoiremaps"' 
-DLOCSRCDIR='"/usr/share/i18n/locales"' -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Iprograms -I../include 
-I.  -I.. -I../libio  -I../sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/elf 
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64 
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc 
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/pthread 
-I../sysdeps/pthread -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv 
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/sparc/sparc64 
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/sparc -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64 
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux 
-I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman 
-I../sysdeps/unix/inet -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/sparc 
-I../sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/fpu 
-I../sysdeps/sparc/sparc64 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 
-I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 
-I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/soft-fp 
-I../sysdeps/sparc/fpu -I../sysdeps/sparc -I../sysdeps/ieee754 
-I../sysdeps/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic  -nostdinc -isystem 
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/3.0.3/include -isystem 
/srv/rock-src-1.5.12-DEV/dist/usr/src/linux/include -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include 
../include/libc-symbols.h -o ld-collate.o
programs/ld-collate.c:3758: Internal compiler error in dwarf2out_finish, at 
dwarf2out.c:11277
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.
make[1]: *** [ld-collate.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/srv/rock-src-1.5.12-DEV/src/glibc-2.2.4/locale'
make: *** [locale/others] Error 2

(full thing can be viewed at http://people.nl.linux.org/~armijn/rock/sparc64/
Beware though, the whole logfile is about 9 MB, I also got it tarred up in
250KB). The manpage for glibc says there are some errors with the locale, but
dunno if this has got something to do with it.

Should I switch to a newer compiler (gcc snapshot) or to glibc 2.2.5?

thanks,

armijn

-- 
 ---
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.nl.linux.org/~armijn/ | Penguin Power
 ---
 http://nl.linux.org/ | Alles over Linux
 ---

Harddiscs are growing

[Michael Blickenstorfer]

Hi all

I would like to install a 80GB harddisk on an UltraSparc10.
But reading the Sun's page of this system, I may only install
2 times 20GB... Is this just an old page? Or won't it be possible
at any time?

Thanks for your help.

Greetings, Michael Blickenstorfer
-- 
"The software said it requires Windows 2000 or better,
 so I installed Linux"